[CamelCaseName]

How many people get scammed every day on X because the verification badge is a "Spend $1-5" badge?

This was especially plain to see in the crypto side of twitter.

Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars.

The average internet user is closer to your grandmother than you or me, and that is who these laws are meant to protect.

[gruez]

>Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars.

So what's the right level of "responsibility"? Is letsencrypt issuing certificates to websites (which shows a lock icon in browsers) also fooling grandma into sending over her credit card details? What about EV certificates from a few years ago, where you paid ~$300/yr for a green lock? Should the EU get in the business of regulating what levels of verification are required to show lock/checkmark icons?

[gjsman-1000]

To continue this train of thought, what happens when the EU decides that unverified users must be hidden by default and can only be accessed by direct lookup?

[bigyabai]

X users would finally come to the realization that they own nothing and support an entirely unprincipled service?

[fidotron]

It will end like Germany where to put anything on the Internet your physical address must be visible.

This is what they've been pushing for with app stores.

[GuestFAUniverse]

Not true. Personal and family matters do not need an impress.

You might want to read Rundfunkstaatsvertrag (RStV), (§ 55 Abs. 1): "Anbieter von Telemedien, die nicht ausschließlich persönlichen oder familiären Zwecken dienen, haben folgende Informationen leicht erkennbar, unmittelbar erreichbar und ständig verfügbar zu halten: Namen und Anschrift, bei juristischen Personen auch Namen und Anschrift des Vertretungsberechtigten."

Google translate: " Providers of telemedia services that are not exclusively for personal or family purposes must keep the following information easily recognizable, directly accessible and permanently available: name and address, and in the case of legal entities, also the name and address of the authorized representative. "

[fidotron]

> Personal and family matters do not need an impress.

Does advocating for one political position or another count as a personal or family matter?

[ecshafer]

So as opposed to the old twitter method which was a vague “you know someone at twitter”, which led to random “journalists” and nobodies being verified. Paying money is just as arbitrary. Money at least means a credit card transaction happened.

[ceejayoz]

An actual human employee at Twitter vouching for someone’s existence seems far more reputable than being able to purchase a Visa gift card in a convenience store.

Verification was “this account is who it says it is”. Not “this account has $10 to spare”.

[surgical_fire]

I remember it being just a "good boy" badge.

People routinely had their checkmark removed when they said something controversial.

[myvoiceismypass]

> People routinely had their checkmark removed when they said something controversial.

It was not indeed happening "routinely".

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/15/16658600/twitter-verific...

[surgical_fire]

Still something that defeats the purpose, no?

A verification badge should be something that says "this person indeed is who they claim to be" not "they can spend a couple of bucks a month" nor "we like him enough to give them a checkmark". Both are extremely unhelpful. The latter probably even more unhelpful since it is very subjective.

[ceejayoz]

Verification came with moderation tweaks for high-profile accounts to combat things like brigading via mass abuse reports. That's why consistently bad behavior tended to lose the check.

Probably should've been two different flags, but it wasn't.